No-one likes general adverts, and ours hadn't been updated for ages, so we're having a clear-out and a change round to make the new ones useful to you. These new adverts bring in a small amount to help pay for the board and keep it free for you to use, so please do use them whenever you can, Let our links help you find great books on glass or a new piece for your collection. Thank you for supporting the Board.

Date lozenge to the base for July 1859 - Parcel 2. Corresponds to Registered Design number 120613, registered by Thomas Dawkins of 4 Little Warner Street, Clerkenwell, London, and the design registration is for a piano insulator. National Archives refs: BT 44/7/120613 and BT 43/61/120613

The 1861 census gives Thomas Dawkins as ‘importer and manufacturer of musical instruments’ (presumably including pianos).

From page 8:“Two items I am confident come from this earlier period are a piano insulator and a tumbler (Plate . The former (Plate 8, right) is green, has a density of 3.00 g/cc and a uranium content of 0.22% by wt. It bears a diamond registry mark equating to registration 120613, 8th July 1859. The deposition states: “Made and Registered by Percival, Yates, & Vickers for Thomas Dawkins, Little Warner Street, Clerkenwell, London”. From this it would seem that the original article was made by Percival Yates & Vickers but raises doubts as to who owned the moulds. The matter is significant, as I have examined several other examples of this design. These do not have the diamond registry mark on the underside but a pattern of either concentric rings or small squares (Plate 8, left). The density of these was 2.52 g/cc and they had a uranium content of 0.25%-0.28% by wt. I have also seen this pattern portrayed as made by the Crown Crystal Glass Company in Australia!.... "

Does anyone have photo of the uranium glass (registered or unregistered) examples to share, please?

Does anyone know of any other examples of Pecival Vickers (or any of the other Manchester glassworks) apparently registering designs or making pieces for third parties?

(Permission for re-use of these images on GMB granted by maitland1972).

Certainly seems in accord with the shape of the registered example, and with Skelcher's descriptionthat 'these do not have the diamond registry mark on the underside but a pattern of either concentric rings or small squares'.

I've just had a quick look at the Kew images for 120613 - they're quite detailed, and the wording certainly agrees with Barrie Skelcher's notes. There's also another insulator under 119975, although very different Registrant.

If you'd like Archive pix of 120613 and/or 119975, let me know. Think I did once have 120613, but can't now find it, so probably gave it away.

RD 119975 appears to have been registered to Davis, Greathead and Green, Stourbridge on 20 May 1859 - Parcel 6. They were a glasshouse that I haven't come across before, but I see that Jason Ellis has details about them as being proprietors at the Dial Glasshouses, Audnam, so I will try and dig out some info about them to accompany the pix in due course.

Details for Rd. 119975 - as you've already said - are Davis Greathead & Green of the Flint Glass Works, Stoubridge, and the piece is listed in the Register as 'Pianoforte Insulator' - date of Registration is 20th May 1859 - parcel 6.The Representation is shown as per the first image.

Rd. 120613 is shown as pictures two and three. In the Archive Representation it can be seen that the names of Percival Yates & Vickers is shown together with Thomas Dawkins etc - parcel 6.......... However the entry in the Kew Register shows the Registrant as Thomas Dawkins only and makes no reference to P.V. The piece is described as a 'Piano Insulator'.

The similarity in the two designs is striking, though the representation details for the Dawkins piano insulator is so much more detailed and precise compared to the Davis, Greathead and Green piano insulator – ‘similar but not the same’. I wonder how ‘unique’ a design feature had to be to make it registerable, and how detailed the representation had to be to make it admissible as legal evidence in a case for breach of copyright?

The source references from TNA again reinforce the unique value of source documentation for references as against derivative information.

The link between Thomas Dawkins and Percival, Yates and Vickers for the RD 120613 piano insulator in absolutely unequivocal from the representation legend.

For the RD 119975 Davis, Greathead & Green piano insulator, the summary register in Jenny Thompson gives the full registrant’s address, whereas Slack merely abbreviates this to “Stourbridge”. In this case, the address is a significant piece of information in that Davis, Greathead and Green operated glasshouses at two quite different locations in the area during the period of their partnership, and the chronology of a business often has a significant bearing on their designs and manufacturing output.

I will do a little more research about Davis, Greathead and Green and post a separate topic referring, among other things, to their RD 119975 piano insulator design registration. Do you think it would be best to simply link to this current topic, or can would it be better for me to copy the design registration from here to show as an immediate and permanent reference (with due credit to you and TNA, of course)?